THE CREDENCE OF JESUS CHRIST AS A DEISTIC DESCENDANT OF JEHOVAH IS DISCREDITED BY SHO

[Enscausasui]

tl ; dr

Anyway to summarize this for us?

Idolater,
The presupposition(s) which are implicitly employed by a given philosophical or theological position are the most vulnerable targets to examine, when one is critically thinking about a given position.
After decades of study of the theoretical works of Martin Heidegger and J.P. Sartre, I became familiar with twentieth century thought regarding how a human act originates and, how human freedom transpires, in the view of what are called existentialist thinkers, like Heidegger and Sartre.
The central precept employed by existentialist thinkers is Baruch Spinoza's "determination is negation", meaning all human determination, when differentiates figure from ground when viewing the world, is a process of negation. Fredrich Hegel stated that Spinoza's dictum is "infinitely rich", and, Sartre, delving into those infinite riches, posited the notion that all human action is a process of negation, which he describes as "the double nihilation".
Thus, learning from existentialist thinkers that all human determination to action is a purely negative operation, wherein no existing factual, given, existing state of affairs has any role whatsoever, in the origin of a human determination to act.
Then, when reflecting upon law, I realized that the way which law expects we human beings to originate our actions and, our forbearances, is directly antithetical to the way we humans originate our actions ontologically. Human beings only originate their actions via the double nihilation. Thus the presupposition that given language of law is a determinative agency in the origination of a human act is illusory; delusional.
Then, upon reflecting about Jehovah's central emphasis upon law, (which law is a given), whereby He presupposes that law is a determinative force among men, one sees Jehovah's supposition is a totally mistaken presupposition. Then, reasoning further, I thought it clear that Jehovah's employment of a given language of law as means to determining man to do or, not do, certain acts, is a mistaken presupposition entertained by Jehovah; thus, being mistaken about the very mode whereby the man He purportedly created, upsurges acts, Jehovah exhibits himself, since he does not know how man actually ticks in regard to originating acts, as not actually being the deity which created man; and, since Christ is Jehovah's Son, Christ is not descended from deity and,thus,is not deity himself. Enscausasui

 

[Idolater]

Idolater,
The presupposition(s) which are implicitly employed by a given philosophical or theological position are the most vulnerable targets to examine, when one is critically thinking about a given position.

OK. The Resurrection of Christ is explicitly that upon which the one Christian faith is built.

After decades of study of the theoretical works of Martin Heidegger and J.P. Sartre, I became familiar with twentieth century thought regarding how a human act originates and, how human freedom transpires, in the view of what are called existentialist thinkers, like Heidegger and Sartre.
The central precept employed by existentialist thinkers is Baruch Spinoza's "determination is negation", meaning all human determination, when differentiates figure from ground when viewing the world, is a process of negation. Fredrich Hegel stated that Spinoza's dictum is "infinitely rich", and, Sartre, delving into those infinite riches, posited the notion that all human action is a process of negation, which he describes as "the double nihilation".

OK. So can you relate this position to Christians' belief in the Resurrection of Christ? How does 'double nihilation' explain things to /about the Christian?

Thus, learning from existentialist thinkers that all human determination to action is a purely negative operation, wherein no existing factual, given, existing state of affairs has any role whatsoever, in the origin of a human determination to act.

This is not a complete sentence.

Then, when reflecting upon law, I realized that the way which law expects we human beings to originate our actions and, our forbearances, is directly antithetical to the way we humans originate our actions ontologically. Human beings only originate their actions via the double nihilation. Thus the presupposition that given language of law is a determinative agency in the origination of a human act is illusory; delusional.
Then, upon reflecting about Jehovah's central emphasis upon law, (which law is a given), whereby He presupposes that law is a determinative force among men, one sees Jehovah's supposition is a totally mistaken presupposition. Then, reasoning further, I thought it clear that Jehovah's employment of a given language of law as means to determining man to do or, not do, certain acts, is a mistaken presupposition entertained by Jehovah; thus, being mistaken about the very mode whereby the man He purportedly created, upsurges acts, Jehovah exhibits himself, since he does not know how man actually ticks in regard to originating acts, as not actually being the deity which created man; and, since Christ is Jehovah's Son, Christ is not descended from deity and,thus,is not deity himself. Enscausasui

The Apostle St. Paul said this in Galatians 3:21 KJV "if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." He also wrote in 1st Corinthians 15:14 KJV that "if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." Christians believe in the Resurrection of Christ.

 

[George Affleck]

Get out the hammer Sherm.

 

[Aimiel]

You are so radically ignorant

Hardly. I'm actually very well-read and mildly educated.

...and so totally brainwashed by your man-inspired bible,

It's God inspired, as proven by the evidence provided therein. If you don't believe me, read, "Testimony of the Evangelists," by Dr. Simon Greenleaf; one of the founders of Harvard Law School, who was considered the world's foremost authority on evidence in jurisprudence, a staunch atheist, who was challenged to take the Bible apart by the rules of evidence. He attempted to do so but soon found that the Gospels corroborate one another and prove their veracity. He soon became Christian and came to the same conclusion that I did after judging the evidence within: Jesus is Lord and God!

...that all you can possibly do is parrot scriptures

I quote Them because they hold the ONLY Truth about God and in Them you can come into a dynamic relationship with The Living God, not become a parrot or hypnotized by a cult. God wants to come inside you to commune with you and be your God and your Friend.

You completely lack both the education and the reflection to even begin to fathom what I am explaining; instead, you incant your nonsensical Christian voodoo, intending to drive me away via your mean, hateful, blind rage and, xenophobic fear of a fresh and unfamiliar ontological disproof of Jehovah/Christ.

You've disproven nothing, merely placed your own ignorance on display, blindly.

Being a so called Christian has enfeebled your sapientality and intensified your capacity for blind hatred and meanness; you are verily only a simple-minded and ignorant slave, who has voluntarily resigned your own consciousness, your own being, in order to slavishly do the will of your god; however, the will of your god most certainly is not that you treat a newbie, on this site, in the horrid hateful insulting manner in which you are treating me.

Your own vitrol doesn't taste very good when it's flung back at you; does it? You spew hateful remarks about The Holy One Who is Judge of the Universe as if He is your puppy to be mis-treated and kicked aside. That isn't acceptable or becoming.

You are an abysmally ignorant and malignantly hateful 6'6" giant.

You're a mental midget.

I have actually, legitimately, slain your law, your scripture, and your god; therefore, you have turned into a raging mad man; for you cannot, via patient reason and intelligence, overpower the absolutely rational, high intelligence, mine, which is a self-made deity of infinite nobility, in possession of vastly more understanding of the structure of human ontological freedom, than the non-deity that you consider the Christ.

Not only is He Christ (The Anointed Son of The Living God) but He is also Creator and Judge. One day, your knees will bow before Him in Obeisance, before you are judged.

Please do not respond to me again, you are far too radically tiresome and, exhibit too infinite an ignorance and, too pure of a non-christian hatefulness and unforgiveness...upon the terms of your belief system, I should be forgiven for murdering your god, not crucified... Enscausasui

I have forgiven you. The fact that you imagine yourself to be high-and-mighty or intellectually superior to a plebian is hysterical.

Now you are being radically unkind and rude, by insultingly informing me I am not welcome here.

I wouldn't presume to judge your TOL-worthiness (not being a sysop) but I certainly welcome your banter, even though you don't consider the evidence of Scripture worthy of your consideration.

I think you are indicating that you do not care to be informed that to believe law is an efficacy among human beings, is to suffer from jurisprudential illusion, and, that to approach controlling the conduct of human beings via law is delusional, because human beings are neither determined to act or forbear action by givenfactual states of affairs.

It isn't that I don't care to be 'informed' of your foolish notion, it's just that I know it's fallacious. As I said, if you really want an intellectual challenge: read Dr. Greenleaf's book. Unless you think his intellect would overshadow your own.

 

[George Affleck]

Now you are being radically unkind and rude, by insultingly informing me I am not welcome here.

Me too...me too!!

I can be almost nearly as unkind and rude. Honestly I can.
And insulting too. I really am that way.

Please sir, do not forget me too.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Aimiel,
My Son, (as Solomon always said): The particular language whereby I have posited disproof of the deity of your god, is your encounter with the first instance of a rational proof that Christ and Jehovah ERROR in regard to their mistaken belief, their mistaken presupposition, that they can mediate their putative deity to man via given law and scripture. Men wrote the scriptural law, the Torah, and, those men, who claim to be deistically inspired authors of God's word, show, by incorporating their lack of understanding of how a human act originates, that no god, but man, inspired scripture.
A genuine God who actually had created man would not have errored by attempting to control men by law, He would have known better, because he would have known that all determination is negation and, that law is not negation, but a factual and existing state of affairs.
I am lovingly working to explain correct understanding and reasoning to you,and all you can rise to doing is making threats against my person, thus, you are acting more like your god than I ! I can indeed out-think your god, and, all you are doing is attempting to out-threat him ! I am not, cannot be afraid of your non-deistic god. Enscausasui

The problem here is really a very simple one. You are a low-context English speaker, and have absolutely NO understanding of linguistics, semiotics, or many other areas. So you actually have NO clue what most of the words you use even mean in any depth, breadth, or height. Lexicography is vital, being essential to determine the quality of one’s epistemics and expressing object as subject. English is a derivative language. If someone doesn’t have a working knowledge of etymology and many other things, then it’s literally impossible to make the claims you’ve arrogantly and ignorantly made above. It’s all laughable, verging on mental disorder.


You don’t understand what law is according to ancient languages; only the shallow and fragmentary partiality of its meaning in the English language. And you have no idea of the voids in your understanding because you lack comprehension of an entire spectrum of grammatical forms. Literally hundreds of them. Reading what you write is ridiculous. You think yourself so utterly competent when your grasp of language and epistemics is below elementary.


You don’t understand divine OR human ontology OR economy, contrary to your assertions. But I’m quite certain you are beyond approachable for any degree or gradient of correction. You actually know less than nothing, for you have substituted that which should be present for its inverse and opposite.


This may be the most useless drivel I’ve ever encountered. Absolutely counter-factual to ANY form of authentic truth. It’s beneath absurd. Sigh.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Idolater,
The presupposition(s) which are implicitly employed by a given philosophical or theological position are the most vulnerable targets to examine, when one is critically thinking about a given position.
After decades of study of the theoretical works of Martin Heidegger and J.P. Sartre, I became familiar with twentieth century thought regarding how a human act originates and, how human freedom transpires, in the view of what are called existentialist thinkers, like Heidegger and Sartre.
The central precept employed by existentialist thinkers is Baruch Spinoza's "determination is negation", meaning all human determination, when differentiates figure from ground when viewing the world, is a process of negation. Fredrich Hegel stated that Spinoza's dictum is "infinitely rich", and, Sartre, delving into those infinite riches, posited the notion that all human action is a process of negation, which he describes as "the double nihilation".
Thus, learning from existentialist thinkers that all human determination to action is a purely negative operation, wherein no existing factual, given, existing state of affairs has any role whatsoever, in the origin of a human determination to act.
Then, when reflecting upon law, I realized that the way which law expects we human beings to originate our actions and, our forbearances, is directly antithetical to the way we humans originate our actions ontologically. Human beings only originate their actions via the double nihilation. Thus the presupposition that given language of law is a determinative agency in the origination of a human act is illusory; delusional.
Then, upon reflecting about Jehovah's central emphasis upon law, (which law is a given), whereby He presupposes that law is a determinative force among men, one sees Jehovah's supposition is a totally mistaken presupposition. Then, reasoning further, I thought it clear that Jehovah's employment of a given language of law as means to determining man to do or, not do, certain acts, is a mistaken presupposition entertained by Jehovah; thus, being mistaken about the very mode whereby the man He purportedly created, upsurges acts, Jehovah exhibits himself, since he does not know how man actually ticks in regard to originating acts, as not actually being the deity which created man; and, since Christ is Jehovah's Son, Christ is not descended from deity and,thus,is not deity himself. Enscausasui

This is actually all just a diluted perversion of truth by moronic existentialists. Ra’a (evil) is a privation and negation. Hamartia (sin) is a privation and negation. All you’ve indicated is that the entirety of the premises from the idiots you revere are evil and sin. And Hegel is among the few most heinous figures in human history. Your doltish adherance to these ridiculous teachings is cringe-worthy. You need some remedial linguistics, as did all these cretins that have destroyed your epistemics, likely beyond recovery.

 

[Enscausasui]

Hardly. I'm actually very well-read and mildly educated.
Aimiel,

24. Legislative/judicial illusion is an instance of human existential absurdity, wherein the illusion consists in blindly, mistakenly, presupposing given language of law to be determinative of human action and inaction; --- legislative/judicial illusion is the ontologically unintelligible misconception of mistakenly presupposing given language of law determines one’s acts, and/or, that one determines one’s self to act, or forbear action, by given law.
So, then, perhaps Aimiel can employ his well-read, radically excellent Grecian linguistically-oriented consciousness, to enunciate exactly and precisely why the above theoretical construct, which is the product of my in extensio reflection upon contemporary theory of the origin of human action, is fallacious.
It is supremely insufficient merely to assert that you "know" my precept is fallacious, you must, via reason, in intelligible language which is equivalent to your thought, demonstrate how and why my construct is fallacious. My precept is wholly predicated upon Spinoza's dictum "determinatio negatio est", thus, you place yourself under the necessity to rationally demonstrate the defeasibility, the precise fallacious structure, of that dictum.
Can you possibly suspend the robotic parroting of ancient and stale scripture just long enough to employ your excellent personal sapientality to, once and for all, rationally demonstrate defeasibility of my legislative/judicial illusion precept ? Enscausasui

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You are so radically ignorant and so totally brainwashed by your man-inspired bible, that all you can possibly do is parrot scriptures and, viciously attack me using fallacious self-righteous
argumentum ad hominem against my person, instead rationally positing reasoning against my position.

You completely lack both the education and the reflection to even begin to fathom what I am explaining; instead, you incant your nonsensical Christian voodoo, intending to drive me away via your mean, hateful, blind rage and, xenophobic fear of a fresh and unfamiliar ontological disproof of Jehovah/Christ.

Being a so called Christian has enfeebled your sapientality and intensified your capacity for blind hatred and meanness; you are verily only a simple-minded and ignorant slave, who has voluntarily resigned your own consciousness, your own being, in order to slavishly do the will of your god; however, the will of your god most certainly is not that you treat a newbie, on this site, in the horrid hateful insulting manner in which you are treating me.

You are an abysmally ignorant and malignantly hateful 6'6" giant. I have actually, legitimately, slain your law, your scripture, and your god; therefore, you have turned into a raging mad man; for you cannot, via patient reason and intelligence, overpower the absolutely rational, high intelligence, mine, which is a self-made deity of infinite nobility, in possession of vastly more understanding of the structure of human ontological freedom, than the non-deity that you consider the Christ.

Please do not respond to me again, you are far too radically tiresome and, exhibit too infinite an ignorance and, too pure of a non-christian hatefulness and unforgiveness...upon the terms of your belief system, I should be forgiven for murdering your god, not crucified... Enscausasui

Go ahead and attempt to thoroughly and exhaustively (and concisely with brevity) define “law” in the relative Hebrew and Greek languages utilized for scripture (which are also the ancient sources for the English language, to a large extent).

What others will see (though you almost assuredly won’t) is that there is no valid foundation for anything these alleged existentialist “authorities” have thought or said. Period.


As a linguist, I already pity you more than probably anyone I’ve ever encountered. You are utterly bewitched.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

24. Legislative/judicial illusion is an instance of human existential absurdity, wherein the illusion consists in blindly, mistakenly, presupposing given language of law to be determinative of human action and inaction; --- legislative/judicial illusion is the ontologically unintelligible misconception of mistakenly presupposing given language of law determines one’s acts, and/or, that one determines one’s self to act, or forbear action, by given law.
So, then, perhaps Aimiel can employ his well-read, radically excellent Grecian linguistically-oriented consciousness, to enunciate exactly and precisely why the above theoretical construct, which is the product of my in extensio reflection upon contemporary theory of the origin of human action, is fallacious.
It is supremely insufficient merely to assert that you "know" my precept is fallacious, you must, via reason, in intelligible language which is equivalent to your thought, demonstrate how and why my construct is fallacious. My precept is wholly predicated upon Spinoza's dictum "determinatio negatio est", thus, you place yourself under the necessity to rationally demonstrate the defeasibility, the precise fallacious structure, of that dictum.
Can you possibly suspend the robotic parroting of ancient and stale scripture just long enough to employ your excellent personal sapientality to, once and for all, rationally demonstrate defeasibility of my legislative/judicial illusion precept ? Enscausasui

Explicate the exhaustive definition of “ontology” from its original language source. Not English. Its origin. Its etymology. Its complete lexical meaning and application.


The verbosity and density of your posts is sadly a pathetic kind of emptiness. Unless you’re fluent in Latin, you don’t even know what your own precept is wholly predicated upon (that being Spinoza’s dictum).


Your own presuppositions are that neither you nor Spinoza, et al have to define terms authentically and exhaustively. You don’t know what you think you know.


Why have you bothered wasting your life studying these fools?

 

[Enscausasui]

PneumaPsucheSoma,
All of that is the most radically extensive fallacious argumentum ad hominem ever posited in the history of the world and, achieves absolutely nothing other than insult to my noble personage, and to derogate J. P. Sartre, who was so unworthy that he was awarded a Nobel Prize.
You cannot achieve an iota against my position by attacking me ! Leave me out of the considerations which I so nobly submit for Christian contemplation. Reflect upon your ad hominem methodology, which constitutes a total failure to grapple with the central construct employed by my declarations, which is that all determination is negation.
It would take me five thousand years to respond to your tirade point by point, I will carefully re-read your argumentum ad hominem, purely for the literary beauty thereof. Enscausasui

 

[Aimiel]

Can you possibly suspend the robotic parroting of ancient and stale scripture ...

Your parroting of superstitious nonsense gives me the heebie-jeebies and I don't have the time or inclination to catalogue the plethora of errors you've swallowed as 'truth;' especially because you blaspheme The Lord and His Holy Word so easily.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

PneumaPsucheSoma,
All of that is the most radically extensive fallacious argumentum ad hominem ever posited in the history of the world and,

Drama queen much?!?! And strong statements are not ad hominem if they’re not used to replace subject matter contrary to that which is posited. So you expose your ignorance of logical fallacies immediately, along with your middle school mentality and victim-stancing (which is forensic psychological dysfunction and/or deviance).

achieves absolutely nothing other than insult to my noble personage, and to derogate J. P. Sartre, who was so unworthy that he was awarded a Nobel Prize.

Any alleged nobility of your personage (again, define this word exhaustively... you can’t and won’t) hasn’t been established, and would be quite subjective according to many factors. I don’t forsee acquiescing to any nobility on your part.

And the existentialists you revere are only worthy of disdain. They have no more idea about epistemics based on a philological foundation than do you. These are facts, not insults. No need to be so hyper-sensitive; especially when you’ve come here to continuously condescend and attempt to exert your fallacious self-agrandized faux-importance and pseudo-intellect, etc. It’s all a sham. You don’t even know what words mean.

You cannot achieve an iota against my position by attacking me !

I didn’t “attack” you, girlfriend. I pointed to your complete lack of linguistic competence in dealing with grammar and semantics.

Leave me out of the considerations which I so nobly submit for Christian contemplation.

This is sheer prevarication. You don’t do this nobly, and it’s not for Christian contemplation. It’s nothing but narcissistic nonsense.

Reflect upon your ad hominem methodology,

Again, you don’t know what ad hominem is. I didn’t use personal insult to avoid counterpoint. On the contrary, I explicitly informed you of your linguistic ignorance. The rest is your victim-stancing.

which constitutes a total failure to grapple with the central construct employed by my declarations, which is that all determination is negation.

Ra’a and hamartia (evil and sin) are the negations. And they’re the source of your mentors’ false assertions and your own.

It would take me five thousand years to respond to your tirade point by point,

Longer. There isn’t sufficient chronological time for such. You’re too far removed from any form of truth or rationality.

I will carefully re-read your argumentum ad hominem, purely for the literary beauty thereof. Enscausasui

LOL. You do that, Nancy. You don’t know what any words mean that you use and build your fallacies upon. You’ve literally wasted your life on nonsensical fecal material in pursuit of a false sense of superiority that’s a vapor of smoke at best.

When you can figure out what ad hominem is, let us all know with your self-correction of your false assertions. Thanks in advance.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

PneumaPsucheSoma,
All of that is the most radically extensive fallacious argumentum ad hominem ever posited in the history of the world and, achieves absolutely nothing other than insult to my noble personage, and to derogate J. P. Sartre, who was so unworthy that he was awarded a Nobel Prize.
You cannot achieve an iota against my position by attacking me ! Leave me out of the considerations which I so nobly submit for Christian contemplation. Reflect upon your ad hominem methodology, which constitutes a total failure to grapple with the central construct employed by my declarations, which is that all determination is negation.
It would take me five thousand years to respond to your tirade point by point, I will carefully re-read your argumentum ad hominem, purely for the literary beauty thereof. Enscausasui

Define “law”.

Define “ontology”.

Don’t regurgitate English definitions which are completely derivative. Provide the definitions from the source languages that gave us English as a human dialect. Be concise and explicit and exhaustive.

(Hint: You have no idea what law actually is and means; and you’ll demonstrate that because you can’t fake it like you do all the rest of this rubbish.)

Good luck with Hebrew and Greek for those definitions.

 

[Enscausasui]

Explicate the exhaustive definition of “ontology” from its original language source. Not English. Its origin. Its etymology. Its complete lexical meaning and application.

Such an explication is readily achieved. Heidegger has already done so, in extensive detail.

'ont' (Gk.),means being;'onto'(Gk.) means being; 'logy' means reflection upon/study of; 'ology' means the study of the language or logic of a given construct...blah blah blah... To do human ontology is to speak man's being; that is what we humans do, i.e., we speak being; e.g., Adam named all the animals...

On your suggestion one would mire one's self down in an infinite regression of accounting for the historicity of each and every word one employs in order to posit one's position; not necessary; it is difficult enough to get readers to look at that which one urgently desires to submit to readers.

All is vanity and vexation of spirit (King Solomon). I am indubitablly doing a wasted life when I herein engage Chistians for the sake of presenting them with critique of their weltanschauung. I, of course, live in the hope of proceeding onto other projects; however, I think it supremely important to articulate critique of the jurisprudential reason whereby we Americans are being enslaved. Emancipation from the tyranny of law is, for me, a most important requisite. I have demonstrated the theoretical/ontological defeasibility of both law and Jehovah/Christ in one fell swoop, while, all the while, all you are doing with your beautiful prose is to posit ad hominum argumentation, which is what each and every Christian who has responded thus far has done ! Enscausasui

 

[Enscausasui]

Define “law”.

(Hint: You have no idea what law actually is and means; and you’ll demonstrate that because you can’t fake it like you do all the rest of this rubbish.)

Good luck with Hebrew and Greek for those definitions.

No human being can have an absolutely translucent comprehension of what 'law' is, because, as it is thus far posited, it is both theoretically and ontologically unintelligible; absurd; nonsensical; a mere in vain Hebraic con game, which constitutes a Judaic devil's purse, which never empties as long as persons can be forever be subjected to ascriptions of fault; while, all the while, those persons are intellectually incapable of speaking up against said con game by describing and accomplishing a theoretical destruction thereof, which is precisely what I have done.
Either conduct yourself decently in keeping with your Christian world view, or, leave me be.
I am rapidly become extremely fatigued by you constant mindless insults. One does not have to entirely reconstruct the evolution of one's language, from scratch, in order to employ said language. With all of your insistence upon the auteur reconstructing the historicity of his native language, you are merely making another fallacious argument, i.e., argument by extension, whereby you vainly attempt to put me out on your philological limb, and, then, saw the limb off. You are, however, a completely articulate fool. Ensacusasui

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Explicate the exhaustive definition of “ontology” from its original language source. Not English. Its origin. Its etymology. Its complete lexical meaning and application.

Such an explication is readily achieved. Heidegger has already done so, in extensive detail.

'ont' (Gk.),means being;'onto'(Gk.) means being; 'logy' means reflection upon/study of; 'ology' means the study of the language or logic of a given construct...blah blah blah... To do human ontology is to speak man's being; that is what we humans do, i.e., we speak being; e.g., Adam named all the animals...

This is nowhere near exhaustive; and it’s not even wholly accurate.

There is no “doing” of human onotology. Ontology is a noun. The accompanying verb would be relative to economy, which is action. “Speaking man’s being” is not at all “ontology”.

What you’re abysmally and pathetically attempting to address is, at least partially, semiotics. But since you don’t know what THAT is or means either, then this will only go further down a dead-end rabbit hole because of your ignorance and arrogance, and plain ol’ wrongness.

On your suggestion one would mire one's self down in an infinite regression of accounting for the historicity of each and every word one employs in order to posit one's position; not necessary; it is difficult enough to get readers to look at that which one urgently desires to submit to readers.

I only asked for 2 defintions, and you responded with some feeble and incompetent attempt at one while ignoring the other. That’s hardly “an infinite regression of accouting for the historicity of each and every word one employs”.

You’re a trip. And it’s a trip into a cul-de-sac of your double standards and narcissistic meanderings. Oh... and your accusations of ad hominem by others while you perpetually condescend to others and demean them. I stated facts that you corroborated. You’re not competent at linguistics. You regurgitated hubris from an idiot as an English definition that wasn’t even valid.

All is vanity and vexation of spirit (King Solomon).

Quoting scripture now? LOL. And in nothing approaching authentic context. Figures.

I am indubitablly doing a wasted life when I herein engage Chistians for the sake of presenting them with critique of their weltanschauung.

Poor thing. We’ll throw you a big pity party.

I, of course, live in the hope of proceeding onto other projects; however, I think it supremely important to articulate critique of the jurisprudential reason whereby we Americans are being enslaved.

You don’t have ANY idea why “we Americans” (and all others” are being enslaved. Not even a Clue from the board game by that name. If you think it’s because of the drivel by your existentialist nannies, you’re beyond hope.

Emancipation from the tyranny of law is, for me, a most important requisite.

And yet you don’t even know what law is or means, particularly according to the Christian faith and the one true and living God (Jehovah isn’t His “name”, BTW, Nancy. Go ahead and define name. It’s onoma in Greek. Try it.)

I have demonstrated the theoretical/ontological defeasibility of both law and Jehovah/Christ in one fell swoop,

No, you’ve demonstrated gross linguistic ignorance. You don’t know what law means, so your bogus claims are not worth sawdust. Grow up, neophyte. (Again, not ad hominem. A valid description by name.)

while, all the while, all you are doing with your beautiful prose is to posit ad hominum argumentation,

No. Ad hominem is something you don’t understand any more than human epistemics or ontology. I would have to be substituting personal insult for any and all pertinent subject matter for it to be ad hominem. Why are you so ignorant?

which is what each and every Christian who has responded thus far has done ! Enscausasui

Incorrect. You came here to engage in wholesale ad hominem on the grandest scale. And now that someone has bested you by exposing your false foundation and ignorance, all you can do is cry.

Everyone has responded with subject matter. No one has personally insulted you instead of doing so. You, on the other hand, have avoided all addresses for exhaustive definitions of basic words upon which your premises are built.

Your lies and fragility and double standards are duly noted, along with your whack existential nothingness. Tell Hegel “hey” in hades (in case I forget to tell you later).

 

[Enscausasui]

Me too...me too!!

I can be almost nearly as unkind and rude. Honestly I can.
And insulting too. I really am that way.

Please sir, do not forget me too.

I, indeed, have not forgotten, will not forget, YOU; by all means, no.

I have been entirely unable to find the forum rules; I know I read something like the rules when I researched this forum.

I have been meaning to respond to your proffer of insult. However, I cannot, honestly ,authorize you to insult me, because, neither I, nor anyone will willingly invite your insult... As an experienced member here on the site, are you certain that you can even ethically, acceptably, insult another member ?! I am not so sure that you can, per forum standards of morality, insult me; after all, it is a stupid and foolish conduct; don't you think so/agree ?! Enscausasui

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

No human being can have an absolutely translucent comprehension of what 'law' is, because, as it is thus far posited, it is both theoretically and ontologically unintelligible; absurd; nonsensical; a mere in vain Hebraic con game, which constitutes a Judaic devil's purse, which never empties as long as persons can be forever be subjected to ascriptions of fault; while, all the while, those persons are intellectually incapable of speaking up against said con game by describing and accomplishing a theoretical destruction thereof, which is precisely what I have done.

What a rambling piece of nothing. Hubris.

You use a word that you can’t define, and indeed say evades definition. I can clearly define it. Any competent linguist can do so. Your contentions are based on absurdities of erroneous speculations from delusions. You want to use a word and deny it has any real definition except your mumbo jumbo from moronic sources.

The law in Hebrew was PROMISSORY, not punitive. It was the means of fulfiling COVENANT. It represented the Bilateral and Conditional covenant that paired with the Abrahamic Unilateral and Unconditional covenant of faith (other words you know nothing about in ANY language, novice).

Either conduct yourself decently in keeping with your Christian world view, or, leave me be.

No. Don’t attempt to prescribe the Christian world view (another fallacious monicker) or mine, holding me hostage to your prejudiced and tangential understandings. In defense of the faith once delivered to the saints, it is quite appropriate to correct those evil ones like yourself with an apologetic.

Just because you’re a master victim, that’s not on me. You’re the one that picked this fight, and you well know it. And you want to shame Christians into cowering from your bluster. I’m not going to yield to your cowardice and dishonesty.

I am rapidly become extremely fatigued by you constant mindless insults.

Then put up or shut up. How could someone so “superior” already be extremely fatigued by rhetoric? You knew what you were doing when you came here, demon. You had NO positive reasons for joining this forum. You had NO intention of addressing anyone with respect or mutual consideration. So stop lying to yourself and all of us. You came here to be a self-appointed monarch and arbiter of alleged truth, subjecting everyone else as a serf in your false little kingdom of demented existentialism.

One does not have to entirely reconstruct the evolution of one's language, from scratch, in order to employ said language.

Only to employ is accurately and validly with consistency. This is you excusing your ignorance of words you use to build your foundation for false superiority. I’ve shattered you source of your fragile identity, and thus your worth. You have nothing without these shallow misdefintions and vagueries of concepts for pseudo-meaning.

Who are you to speak authoritatively on the use of language? You know you’re no linguist.

With all of your insistence upon the auteur reconstructing the historicity of his native language, you are merely making another fallacious argument, i.e., argument by extension, whereby you vainly attempt to put me out on your philological limb, and, then, saw the limb off. You are, however, a completely articulate fool. Ensacusasui

No. I just know what “law” is and means, and I know what other major words you use that are the same situation. You make bare assertions about “law” that don’t even apply to “law” in regards to what it truly means. That’s because you’re an English speaker. You can’t even imagine how stupid your premises are from a linguistic perspective.

And again it is you who are the one engaging in ad hominem, not me. And you couldn’t climb out on my philologcial limb if Hegel and company launched you there with a trebuchet. You’re a bloviating fool, pretending to be articulate. Now what, Herman?

 

[Enscausasui]

In my OP I am arguing against mistaken presupposition held by persons and putative gods; I am not addressing and arguing against the persons themselves; while, all the while, all you can do is insult my person. You are too much of a complete and ignorant young fool for my sensitive personality to be exposed to. You are dreadful. You nauseate me. Leave me the hell alone.